@JoMumsnet
Do you think you could ask anyone who has the authority, to have a meeting about what women on that thread saying now?
There is lots of speculation as to why you can't allow general misgendering.
We know you're targeted, but I think the assumption is that beyond that you/we could be accused of malicious communications or some other justifiable crime. Or, as you say, be accused of making this place unfriendly to trans people. And naturally Justine doesn't want that publicity, nor a court case.
Which, although understandable, always tips the balance in favour of those who wish to stick it to women. Be they MRAs, TRAs, or whatever.
They have been given a tool that is too open to exploitation and so easily used to abuse women. They are going out of their way to ensure women are far from friendly. Women should not be expected to befriend their abusers.
Forcing women into compelled speech is bad enough, but when it obscures the abuse, it's even worse. It's a double whammy.
There must be a way to maintain the integrity, commercial allure, and legality of the site whilst unshackling women's voices.
For instance, you allow the misgendering of Karen White, Ian Huntley, etc. Because you know, down to your boots, that you can justify it. Anyone could.
As a solution to which criteria is allowed to accurately define sex, is it possible to start applying the context of, say, 'ethical justification' to therule of misgendering?
Women don't tend to go out of their way to call specific transwomen men or male for no reason.
It's usually after something horribly disrespectful, rude, abusive or manipulative.
In terms of justification, and in line with fairness, can women accurately define the sex of those specific men who go out of their way to abuse them either personally, or as a class? On the basis that it's ethical. And not illegal.
It's not right that women cannot actually identify how and why they are being abused. On the basis of arbitrary rules set up that are outside the law, by the very men who are perpetuating that abuse.
I realise this is yet more judgement calls, but I think that ship has sailed, anyway.
The answer can always be if you stop being disrespectful to women, we might listen to you, if you don't, we won't.
If you can see something is disrespectful, abusive or manipulative, then so will everyone else. Including the media, your customers, and a judge.
Allowing women's voices shouldn't have to take a man who has already told womankind to die in a fire, targeted lesbians with blatant homophobia, celebrated the impending death of a young woman, and posted a gif dancing on her grave on the day she died. It really shouldn't. I genuinely believe the bar is not that low.